STOVL is frequently derided as being ineffective or a waste of money, but I see it as a technology and capability that has just not reached its inflection point yet. Just look at how long it took for electric cars or AI to mature and become commercially viable. Does that mean that all the effort that went into it before that point was wasted? Of course not. If people hadn't put the R&D effort into them, the tech would have never matured.
I for one am fully convinced that STOVL capabilties will become increasingly common over the comming decades, and every bit spent on building out their enabling infrastructure will pay huge dividends.
I just don't see it. This very different than electric cars or AI which has much higher potential while the main selling point and the peak of VTOL is that your carriers don't require EMALS which isn't a problem for China.
It also compromises range which is a big thing for WESTPAC theater unlike F-35B and Harrier bombing some 3rd world country or terrorist off their coast.
Others argued that it ca land anywhere and provide air cover to beach head.
I don't see how attractive it is to able to land anywhere you like because it isn't simply true. VTOL require special heat resistant surfaces to land or else it will burn a hole on the ground, and then you still need the logistic train to go with it so it isn't that simple or flexible. I still don't see the use of it.
I am going to say a VTOL engine for a helicopter might be even more useful for PRC than a VTOL fixed wing. Rapid transportation and insertions of troops and vehicles. Though I doubt it require 2 or even 1 F-35B level powerplant. Now VTOL is actually beneficial to the platform, increasing range, payload and speed. While a VTOL fixed wing reduces range and payload.
